"...if someone you know or someone from your family dies or gets affected because of these idiots you will do a 180 in seconds alright."
Which is a logical and understandable reaction when you're in a state of intense grief. It doesn't mean you're right, it means your judgement is highly impaired.
The very same social media that you claim is such an effective ISIS recruitment tool (highly debatable) is also a great educator for everyone opposing them. Freely available info works both ways.
Given their history, any strong pro-IP stance from Metallica is totally believable. Lawyers act on instructions from their client, not on their own whims. Somebody either told them to do this, or (more likely) they had standing instructions that weren't clear enough in their limits. The band may honestly not have wanted this to happen, but they're not blameless.
"Would you ever argue that a grocery store with record sales shouldn't worry about shoplifting? I wouldn't, because it's a silly argument."
Well that's exactly what a lot of stores do to a degree, so who's the silly one?
"Yes, it's a successful film. But how successful would it have been without piracy?"
Wrong question. The right question is, how much more or less money would we make if we stopped heavily investing in historically unsuccessful anti-piracy efforts, and put that money into productive (i.e, profitable) areas instead. Given widespread piracy still is, the return on investment seems pretty terrible. If you could make more money overall by taking a more realistic approach, i.e. targeting only large-scale commercial piracy instead of the general public whose custom you're trying to win, why wouldn't you?
"Why is copyrighting a work from 1959 terrible for culture, yet copyrighting a work from 1960 is something you now admit to supporting? Wouldn't it be terrible for culture too?"
Wow, that is the lamest attempt at a "gotcha" question I've seen in a while. Both are just as bad, but you well know that a line has to be drawn somewhere to make a law. Why don't you explain to us why Life+50 is an acceptable copyright period but Life+49 is not? The question is just as dumb and we know you can't answer it.
"And yet you shed zero tears for artists being ripped off every hour of every day."
That's not true, there have been plenty of Techdirt articles about record label contracts.
"Go die in a fire, you lying, hypocritical sleazeblob."
Yes, continue actively reinforcing the strongly negative opinion the general public has of the recording industry (not artists), that'll get 'em buying CD's again!
"I don't like rap so lying to federal law enforcement agencies and gross violations of free speech laws is ok by me!" You really cant see how stupid and destructive that attitude is?
"I do base it on things like my ability to control the car and avoid a crash. Things like not having a computer inserted between my controls and the car."
Modern stability controls can do a much better job of allowing you to control the car and avoid a crash than most drivers are able to. You say you're in IT, not a professional driver, so it's safe to assume that includes you. I'm not criticising your car choices, just your rationalisation for them. Claiming you can do a better job of avoiding a crash on your own implies a skill level that's probably higher than the reality.
I don't want to offend but you sound a bit naive, as if you didn't think government and big business would push back to defend their firmly entrenched interests. Tell me who else has the power, funds and network to effectively challenge them? The only group who has a change are voter/purchasers, and they're doing a pretty average job...
Your criticism is very poorly aimed. Those in the "free speech tech community" are not the ones breaking the promises you grew up hearing, in fact they're often the one's fighting hardest for them. It's governments and big business that are entirely to blame for the ills of the internet. You same ones you probably vote for and buy from.
While I share your enthusiasm for older cars, you have to be truly ignorant of modern automotive engineering to think a few basic bolt-ons to an old car can make it as safe as a new one. What you're doing is simply accepting greater risk of injury in an accident. Nothing wrong with honestly admitting that.
Also note that driving in a caged car without a helmet makes serious injury more likely than if you had no cage. Side impacts are far more common than rollovers, and smacking your head against a cage during a crash is never pretty...
The First Amendment prevent's the government from silencing said morons. It doesn't prevent us from telling them to shut the hell up for everyone's benefit.
"The smarter ones you don't hear about until after they're successful."
And look how incredibly rare they are. Look at the number of deaths from acts of terrorism compared to damn near any other way to die. It's a stupid thing to throw away your liberty for.
"Personal intelligence really has little to do with predicting a the severity of a threat anyway."
Can't agree with that. It's seems common sense that the smarter the perpetrators are the less likelihood they'll be discovered beforehand and the more likely their attacks will be harmful, i.e. smarter = higher threat. So where are all the really smart terrorists at?
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Cops are given exceptional power, weapons, legal leeway, and (nearly always) the benefit of the doubt. How is it unreasonable to also expect them to prove they're not impaired while carrying out their duties?
"My first assumption isn't that the problem is attempted fraud or systemic scamming."
You remember we're taking about Comcast right? While they may not quite reach the legal definitions of fraud or scams, their standard operating procedure seems to be to consistently deliver something different to what most customers reasonably expect. Proof of widespread inaccuracy in their data metering would surprise absolutely no-one, and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If you found out your water, electricity or gas bill was consistently higher than it should be because of inaccurate metering, you wouldn't be blithely saying "shit happens", and neither would regulators. Fines could well result. Explain to everyone why data should be treated differently. Why should our attitude to data metering be any different.
"Honestly, if Kim is innocent, don't you think he would have long since come to the US to get this over with?"
I cringe at the stupidity of this idea every time it's stated, and Dotcom haters just love to repeat it. Being hauled off to a foreign country, probably for years, would have a massive personal and financial cost for anyone. Why would you voluntarily do that if you believed you were innocent and there was a legal process to avoid it? Fighting extradition does not imply guilt, it implies sanity. It you were in a similar situation you'd do exactly he same thing, and it would be grossly dishonest of you to claim otherwise.
On the post: Woman Files Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Twitter For 'Providing Material Support' To ISIS
Re: Isis Is A Great And Powerful Goddess ...
I'm not sure if you can really blame them for an English language acronym popularized by Western mainstream media.
On the post: Woman Files Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Twitter For 'Providing Material Support' To ISIS
Re:
Which is a logical and understandable reaction when you're in a state of intense grief. It doesn't mean you're right, it means your judgement is highly impaired.
The very same social media that you claim is such an effective ISIS recruitment tool (highly debatable) is also a great educator for everyone opposing them. Freely available info works both ways.
On the post: Netflix CEO 'Loves' Netflix Password Sharing
Re:
On the post: Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hateful Eight Pirated Leak Harms Film All The Way To Box Office Records
Re:
Well that's exactly what a lot of stores do to a degree, so who's the silly one?
"Yes, it's a successful film. But how successful would it have been without piracy?"
Wrong question. The right question is, how much more or less money would we make if we stopped heavily investing in historically unsuccessful anti-piracy efforts, and put that money into productive (i.e, profitable) areas instead. Given widespread piracy still is, the return on investment seems pretty terrible. If you could make more money overall by taking a more realistic approach, i.e. targeting only large-scale commercial piracy instead of the general public whose custom you're trying to win, why wouldn't you?
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that is the lamest attempt at a "gotcha" question I've seen in a while. Both are just as bad, but you well know that a line has to be drawn somewhere to make a law. Why don't you explain to us why Life+50 is an acceptable copyright period but Life+49 is not? The question is just as dumb and we know you can't answer it.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true, there have been plenty of Techdirt articles about record label contracts.
"Go die in a fire, you lying, hypocritical sleazeblob."
Yes, continue actively reinforcing the strongly negative opinion the general public has of the recording industry (not artists), that'll get 'em buying CD's again!
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re:
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old classics
Modern stability controls can do a much better job of allowing you to control the car and avoid a crash than most drivers are able to. You say you're in IT, not a professional driver, so it's safe to assume that includes you. I'm not criticising your car choices, just your rationalisation for them. Claiming you can do a better job of avoiding a crash on your own implies a skill level that's probably higher than the reality.
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re:
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re: Re: Re: The good old classics
Also note that driving in a caged car without a helmet makes serious injury more likely than if you had no cage. Side impacts are far more common than rollovers, and smacking your head against a cage during a crash is never pretty...
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re: Re:
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re:
And look how incredibly rare they are. Look at the number of deaths from acts of terrorism compared to damn near any other way to die. It's a stupid thing to throw away your liberty for.
"Personal intelligence really has little to do with predicting a the severity of a threat anyway."
Can't agree with that. It's seems common sense that the smarter the perpetrators are the less likelihood they'll be discovered beforehand and the more likely their attacks will be harmful, i.e. smarter = higher threat. So where are all the really smart terrorists at?
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
Re: So much fail...
On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud? Extortion?
You remember we're taking about Comcast right? While they may not quite reach the legal definitions of fraud or scams, their standard operating procedure seems to be to consistently deliver something different to what most customers reasonably expect. Proof of widespread inaccuracy in their data metering would surprise absolutely no-one, and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud? Extortion?
On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Laughing...
Nobody has ever claimed such nonsense. That doesn't even make sense. Try harder.
On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
I cringe at the stupidity of this idea every time it's stated, and Dotcom haters just love to repeat it. Being hauled off to a foreign country, probably for years, would have a massive personal and financial cost for anyone. Why would you voluntarily do that if you believed you were innocent and there was a legal process to avoid it? Fighting extradition does not imply guilt, it implies sanity. It you were in a similar situation you'd do exactly he same thing, and it would be grossly dishonest of you to claim otherwise.
Next >>